"1:1 Austrian mass madness!" Topic

Ok, so on a previous post I threatened to go and set up a 1:1 Austrian battalion to settle once and for all the exact nature of the multitude of Austrian column/mass combinations in use in 1809. The results are pretty intriguing and have some ramifications for my own 1809 project.

So here we go!

First off, here is an Austrian battalion in line at roughly 1:1 ground and figure scale. It is composed of 6 companies of 6 bases each or 180 men. If it were real there would be about 1080 men in three ranks:

As you can see, its a long thin line of white uniformed Austrian infantry. With over 1000 men it is about exactly twice as big as the average French battalion at Wagram. (In the background are the other bases from the I Corps that you can see intact in my other post on here).

This is a battalion mass, each company is lined up one behind the other into one big mass:

There are some representational issues with the battalion mass with my ground scale. Here you can see the 1:1 battalion mass, the same unit at 10:1 in the middle showing waaay too much depth, and then on the right, just for the heck of it, a French column of division at the same scale as the Austrian battalion on the left.

The general consensus seems to have it that this formation was most popular when Arch Duke Charles was NOT on the scene. It is simply a totally closed column on an Austrian company frontage… which is twice the size of a French company, bear in mind. With 3 feet between companies, this illustrates just how tightly packed the formation would have been.

This next shot is just eye candy:

The battalion mass is pretty straight forward. The issue that has been bothering me is the DIVISION MASS. From what I have gathered the division mass differs from the battalion mass in several ways but how exactly is very much open to interpretation.

One thing we do know for certain was that there was a division mass that involved the battalion breaking up into three 2 company masses on a HALF Austrian COMPANY FRONTAGE. This would be the same frontage as an average French company. The final result could look like this:

Three massed columns 12 ranks deep on a 30 man frontage. An obvious death trap if under arty fire, it had the advantage against cavalry that the men on the outside edge simply had no choice but to stand firm. The putative advantage of this formation over the battalion mass is that here you can quickly have 3 separate attack columns on a company frontage if needed.

Here's how the sub units work. First, here are two companies:

Next, they break down into two half companies each:

These then stack up one behind the other to create the 12 rank deep division mass sub-units.

The question is then, "why do I care so much about this?" Well, its because in certain situations the division mass is the one thing that really messes with the ground/figure scales in my Wagram project. This photo explains everything:

In the back is the 1:1 battalion in division mass. In front of it are two models of the same formation in the scale that I am using for my 10:1 Wagram project. Each base is supposed to represent a company. In front of that are some of my 20mm x 10mm bases turned on edge which show the correct frontage for the half companies at my chosen scale. And in the foreground is an Austrian battalion in line at the same scale. (You will all notice that I'm not using a 3rd rank on my bases- I had started off using them but then decided it wasn't necessary. I actually think that 2 ranks looks better than 3 now, plus it lets me use the most shallow base possible).

More pointedly, here is another fudged model. I this pic I've turned to the side 6 battalions worth of Austrian infantry in a division mass and show then facing off with a French brigade in ordre mixte:

As you can see, the Austrians, using division mass, can pack 3000 troops into the frontage of only 3 French companies!! Bear in mind that the central French battalion in line is 110 scale meters across. This means that the French brigade is facing 6000 Austrian infantry although it is facing only about the same number of guns. Almost certainly the Austrians would have deployed to a more advantageous formation long before the French closed to this distance.

I really puzzled over how to represent the division mass today. The problem only really is an issue when its at maximum density. All I care about, really, is the foot print:

That's a 60mm Litko base placed over top of the correct area of the 3 battalion division mass formation in a checkboard formation (that is, with the prescribed half-company distance between the sub-units.) As luck would have it 60mm square is the exact area of a three battalion regiment when placed into one big clump:

Issue solved! There you have a french brigade of 3000 men attacking the 12 battalions of I Korps's 1st Division who are all drawn up into identical checkerboard division mass. Visually it's a bit off but ground-scale wise its right on. The division mass seems to make some very serious concessions to firepower in the name of protection from cav… not to mention what would happen if a few batteries of artillery got their range!

Finally, here is the 2d Brigade, 2d Division of I Korps set up in a much more attractive take on the division mass formation although twice as big in frontage as they should be. I'll be using this version of the formation whenever space permits since it looks so much better and my house rules are going to use event-based movement as opposed to measuring each and every battalions shooting range and movement distance. This pic also illustrates how far apart the division mass battalions would have to be positioned if the brigade commander wanted to break them out into line for some reason:

Ok, sorry about the mega-post, but I hope that this will aid others who might be having the same questions I did on Austrian battalions and their various deployment strategies and how to show them on the table top. If anyone is aware of something I missed please let me know and I'll add another pic to illustrate it!

Interesting. However, I have come to question from some of the previous posts, whether an divisionalmasse was simply a batallionmass on a two company front? Like a column of divisions is not a two company column but a column on a two company front.

Besides that – you have some great ground scale experiments. Would love to hear some more about your event driven rules.

great display of figures – showing well how scaling down in ratio even 1 / 10 gives to much depth.

The Divisionsmasse was fromed from two companies, called a Division (it was not a Bataillonsmasse, which was made from a battalion)

"The general consensus seems to have it that this formation was most popular when Arch Duke Charles was NOT on the scene"

I would like to know on what basis this consensus is formed??

Bonjour forwardmarchstudios,

How marvelous to see troops at 1:1 so that the footprint proportions are just right.

I shall have to read all your descriptions again, and again, to fully understand the intricacies but I may never actually achieve that!

Significantly though, this does suggest to me that there's a lot to be said for having say 1:1 2mm scale wargame armies which addresses the ground-scale issues plus the mega bonuses of being easier to paint and easier on the pocket!

Thought provoking and educational.

Cheers,

Paul

Nice work, representing 1:1 is very powerful to realise the limits of figure ratios. Even more significant for cavalry as the figures are three times deeper than their frontage.

The original 1824 Kriegsspiel had the same problem. A rectangular block for half a battalion is accepted as having the correct frontage for line but over deep, or the correct frontage for column, not overdeep for an open column but overdeep for closed column. KS did address this somewhat by stacking the troop blocks which is not an option we have with figures unless ….. you allow the troop ratio to vary to keep the ground scales right. Use a marker for strength.

When the ground scale increases with smaller scale figures then dense packed reserve formations need to be represented and you cannot always do this using bases that are better for deployed units. The battalionmass is a reserve formation but the Austrians appear to have used this further forward but covered by skirmishers.

If those battalion mass are six stands to a battalion, why do you have the battalions all smashed together into one big column? They would never be formed that way.

And a division masse would be a two company column, separate or formed with the rest of the battalion. [yes, the two company column could and did operate separately, that flexibility is one reason the formation was used for so long.]

That's a 60mm Litko base placed over top of the correct area of the 3 battalion division mass formation in a checkboard formation (that is, with the prescribed half-company distance between the sub-units.) As luck would have it 60mm square is the exact area of a three battalion regiment when placed into one big clump.

They would never form in one big clump as shown.

There you have a french brigade of 3000 men attacking the 12 battalions of I Korps's 1st Division who are all drawn up into identical checkerboard division mass. Visually it's a bit off but ground-scale wise its right on. The division mass seems to make some very serious concessions to firepower in the name of protection from cav… not to mention what would happen if a few batteries of artillery got their range!

If you are talking about the checkerboard formation in the back of the picture, that would be correct. If you are talking about the big mass of figures in the middle ground facing the mixed order fromation--that isn't a division mass formation, by battalion or otherwise. Why do you think it is?

Thanks for the comments!

McLaddie:

The battalion mass is at 1:1, so each company is 6 bases. The battalion mass is 1000 men on a company frontage, 6 companies deep with minimal space between each company. I then show it next to a 6 comapny deep "mass" at 10:1 ground scale, the one I'm using. That's the single base deep formation that looks more like a column than a mass. I'm illustrating the limitations of abstraction.

By "one big clump" I meant and should have said a checkboard formation. What I'm saying is that the division mass on a half-company frontage was so dense that it presents a direct challange to representation on the table top. That is, the only way to represent a regiment of 3 battalions of 1000 men each deployed in checkboard fashion with the minimal spacing possible between them (as in the 1:1 example) is for me to line my bases up in a 60mm x 60mm square. It doesn't look correct, as I said, but it does come closest to covering the correct ground area. I did realize this morning that that 60mm square is actually too deep as well, but it is as good as I can get.

Mike the Mug- using a number to represent the strength is an excellent idea in a few different ways. You could even hide the number, upside down if the unit is masked by terrain or skirmishers and then deploy the fighting formations from there. I'll have to think that one over.

Sparta- the 2 company frontage column is another option for what the division mass is that I've seen as well. I should probably do another picture with that option too, as it does seem to have been used at times. An Austrian battalion on a division frontage isn't as maneuverable as a French battalion on a division frontage, since the Austrian companies and hence divisions are twice as big. It'd be 9 men deep, which seems like it'd give some good protection from cav and have 3/4 the firepower of a French battalion in line. I like them from a modeling perspective because they're easier to represent than the other forms of mass formation, both division and battalion.

All the reading I've done the last few days has illustrated that there were different things meant by the term division mass.

My understanding that a battalion in division masse (i.e. three separate columns, as you have shown), should be able to deploy into line quite readily – in other words the intervals between each of the columns would be three times the occupied frontage. I think this is what McLaddie is suggesting.

Are you saying that the 1:1 columns are just taking up too much frontage so it appears like a huge mass? That doesn't make sense. I can see how the formation would be too deep on the table, but not too wide!

Great visual appearance though.

Technically an Austrian battalion doesn't have any companies.

It has 3 divisions, each divided into 2 half-divisions.

So a divisionmasse deploying on a "half company" frontage could either be a transliterative error for half-division or else it's deploying on a zug frontage.

Sometimes nomenclature can give insight.

Hi MG-

No, the 1:1 columns are correct more than less in depth and frontage. I thought McLaddie was referring to my 10:1 model showing the checkerboard deployment of two regiments on in that same checkboard formation if the sub-units were held in the tightest possible checkboard formation. Thats what the bases turned sideways are representing in the one picture. It shows the 1:1 version, then two 10:1 modellings of the same thing. Then it shows, with the 10mm sides of the bases, how much area those units should be taking up if the ground scale is consistent with the company frontage in line. And then it shows a 10:1 battalion in line. The point I'm trying to illustrate is that you should be able to fit 6 battalions in division mass (the div mass on a half-company frontage that is) in the frontage of one battalion in line if one battalion in each regiment are placed back.

It's the 10:1 units that are taking up too much space and look like a big mass where they should look like a checkboard. I will have to make some sort of compromise, in short, to be able to represent the division mass… unless it is on a larger than half-company frontage. If it's done on a company frontage (3 masses of two companies each) or on a division frontage (2 masses of three companies each) then I can easily model it.

There's a pic at the end of a 10:1 brigade with the distances needed for it to break out into line. But bear in mind that that'll be one looong line!

Zippee-

When I say half-company I mean zug frontage, yes. I'm using the term "company" only because everyone on here (I assume) knows what I mean. But yes, you are correct. If you replace my "company" with "half-division" and my "half-company" with "zug" my post will have the correct terminology.

there is no 2 company frontage for a battalion, a Bataillonsmasse would be either company front or half company front.

A Divisionsmasse is half company front (secondary sources)

This would make only sense when a battalion is formed in line, from there you could form 3 Divisionsmassen – of half company frontage each.

Also they could deploy in line as well, they would keep their deployment distance to each other, they would not form a single closed column but stay 3 closed columns.

VW-

I generally agree with you although a few people on here have said that they believe there was a division mass on the half-division frontage (I'm not using the terms Zippee pointed out). This is obviously different from the division mass on a zug frontage.

forwardmarchstudios

In case there was a divisionsmasse on half division frontage – that would be just one company behind each other.

this would be against the concept of the mass in general as laid down clearly in the Exerzierreglement regarding the Bataillonsmasse which could be formed not wider than a company or as wide as a half company.

A regimentsmasse of two battalions could be two companies (or two divisions front).

I am still on the hunt regarding the description of a Divisonsmasse in the Exerzierreglement, I have to check other sources as well.

So far my understanding is – that a Divisionsmasse had a half company frontage.

I should have said above I am "Now using the terms Zippee pointed out…"

Anyway, I am interested in seeing the regulation language. It's an interesting topic.

By "one big clump" I meant and should have said a checkboard formation. What I'm saying is that the division mass on a half-company frontage was so dense that it presents a direct challange to representation on the table top.

Thanks. Missed that entirely, that and the six stand company. I was thinking six company stands to represent a battalion…

Not my most perceptive moment.

von Winterfeldt:

So far my understanding is – that a Divisionsmasse had a half company frontage.

VW:
Did we have this conversation before? Don't remember. From what I understand, the Divisionmasse could also be a company front, depending.

McLaddie

I found eventually all this in the plates to the Exerzier Reglement of 1807 – which I will photograph and put it up here for the aficionados – it confirms

a – the Divisionsmasse did exist

b – it was a half company wide

So the Hollins diagram is based on solid primary sources:

The next thing to get clear is how this would actually have looked in the field. My understanding is that a battalion would have deployed this formation as three blocks in a line with sufficient intervals to allow deployment in line formation – i.e. 1.5 "company" frontages between each block.

I think any chequerboard element would have come from the deployment of a second battalion behind it with its masses aligned with the intervals.

This represents quite a dispersed formation in fact. The mass itself is quite a dense target (12 ranks deep), though less than a battalion mass (18 or 36 ranks) – but the wide intervals and compact size would make it no so easy for the artillery to aim true – and easy to make use of folds and cover. Meanwhile the intervals would allow supporting artillery and cavalry to pass through with ease.

Looks like a good idea in theory!

WV:

a – the Divisionsmasse did exist

b – it was a half company wide

So, the ONLY formation a Divisionmasse was ever in had a half company front? Not what I have read.

And are you saying that a Divisionmasse was such if it formed at greater distances than closed? quarter, half or full distances?

the Divisionmasse was an effective anti-cavalry formation which calls into question the comparison with battalionmasse where it is a better defensive formation against cavalry than the Divisionmasse.

McLaddie

See above in seperate thread, I can only show what I did find and this seems to confirm my idead about Massen in general as well as for the Divisionsmasse.

I am always open to discussion, in case you find additional informaion – I am glad to learn from it.

As you can see the Divisionsmassen (it really were more than one, usually three in a battalion) could be quickly formed to repell cavalry, when the battalion was in line.

When it was in Bataillonsmasse, then of course there is no need to form 3 Divisionsmassen.

I did not find information so far that the Divisionsmasse was wider than a half company, in case you do – please quote – I am eager to read this.

The concept of the Massen in general is that for a battalion they are not wider than a company, and for a Regimentsmasse – not wider than two companies (or a division).

I would find it odd – when a Divisionsmasse would be one company wide, half company would seem to fit into the concept of a Masse.

If the DM where only company wide, it would only be six ranks deep – and less if the third rank was detached. I believe that conventional wisdom of the time was that this was not robust against cavalry – one reason that the French did not use Attack Column or Col of Divisions if only four companies were present.

I also note that, according to my 1866 rules (highly secondary source admittedly!) that in this era the DM was also half-company in frontage – though its usage was much wider than anti-cavalry by then – and more compact formations (reduced intervals between the divisions) were used as well. In half a century tactical doctrine had moved on, no doubt.

please take your time and look at the photos I put up under the sperate thread Divisons – Bataillonsmassen etc.

WV:

What is your understanding of 'Massen'?

I did not find information so far that the Divisionsmasse was wider than a half company, in case you do – please quote – I am eager to read this.

The concept of the Massen in general is that for a battalion they are not wider than a company, and for a Regimentsmasse – not wider than two companies (or a division).

That is what I understand [not wider than a company] and yes, I will get the information. My desktop computer crashed where I have most of my sources, so as soon as I get that up and running, I will get the sources.

I just found this and wanted to say thank you to VW for the posting of such nice pictures illustrating the concepts. I've been struggling with adapting these formations in 15mm scale, and I am finding this very helpful.

As you can see, its a long thin line of white uniformed Austrian infantry.

Who don't look very white at all, if you don't mind me saying so!

Quite apart from the ground-scale issues you are addressing, it's worth looking at the appearance of the figures "en masse" ('scuse the pun) and the question of what figure size/scale does to our perceptions of colour. My first thought on seeing these photos was that you'd have trouble identifying the troops as Austrian, or anyone else for that matter (ok, they're obviously not British!), at the scale distance represented in the photo, even ignoring the "helicopter" view. But most people would expect that a thousand men in white uniforms coats, trousers and belts would "pop" a little more than they do (that's not a criticism of your painting btw, just a literal observation). I would imagine that on a fully terrained surface – as opposed to a plain wooden table that makes the bases stand out – that line of figures would be even more indistinct. That said, some of the small blocks of figures behind the line in the first photos do look a bit lighter.

Just to say I'm a big admirer of this project, although I don't comment much on it as I'm not as informed on the minutiae of Napoleonic formations as one would need to be to critique your work. However, one of the reasons I game AWI is the ability to get closer to a 1:1 ratio and make linear formations look what they were – narrow "ribbons" of troops – and to porttray columns as what they were, namely a succession of lines, rather than a wider-than-normal bus queue.

My experience with 3mm is that the headgear tends to dominate the colors we see, so many colorful troops get some negation effect by their boring black head gear/ helmet/ shako. Some 6mm can have this effect too.

I for one think the miniatures look terrific!

Arg, my pics above are actually incorrect. I there was a lot of back and forth on this topic, and as far as my time on TMP goes, it was one of the best posts I've been a part of. The thing was, there were, at the time, two or three posts going on my 1:1 pics involving the Austrians.

The correct formation would have been this, except it would have been spread out over about three times as much space laterally:

This would have made each cluster a difficult target for long range arty, while allowing them to disperse into line as quickly as possible. Waaay ahead of its time- the Archduke was no tactical slouch!!

Waaay ahead of its time….

"La "Masse de Division" est une formation intermédiaire entre le carré "creux" et la ligne "fermée". Elle fut une des principales dispositions de défense pendant la guerre de Sept Ans. Son utilisation la plus célèbre est à mettre à l'actif de la Garde Prussienne (IR 15) à la bataille de Kölin (7 mars 1757) alors qu'elle couvrait, avec un régiment de cuirassiers, la retraite Prussienne face à la poussée impériale. Pourtant cette formation est une invention Française, d'où le nom qu'elle conserva dans tous les pays de langue germanique. Certains auteurs anglo-saxons l'ont mal traduite car elle est uniquement formée à partir de la ligne. Lors des guerres de la Révolution et de l'Empire, cette formation ne sera plus appliquée qu'en Autriche."

Ooooh, touché!!!!

That's interesting that the formation was used earlier though. I wonder why the apprehension at using it in 1809?

interesting, don't forget to state your source, that would be interesting as well, I wonder from where it got the information about the Prussian IR at Kolin.

Last time I stated my source, you mentioned that the French Military did not understand anything about the masse de division ;-)

Ergo same source as the last time I presented it… ;-)

As for the comment that "the Archduke was no tactical slouch"…I totally agree…to include that while all other countries had to halt a close column and change directions by a flanking wheel, the Archduke in 1807 introduced the oblique for the close column.

"That's interesting that the formation was used earlier though."

What do the French ordonnances state prior to 1757?

"I wonder why the apprehension at using it in 1809?"

What primary sources states it was "apprehension"?

"Last time I stated my source, you mentioned that the French Military did not understand anything about the masse de division ;-)"

No I didn't. I think you are confusing me with someone else.

Division Masse as I understand it, regardless of the half company or full compnay front, was a battalion in 3 two company columns, which could and did operate as separate entities during the 1809 campaign. Matthew Green's diagram above shows the central division [numbered 2. Each of the three divisions in the battalion had a number 1, 2, and 3] The formation was so popular in fact, that it became the column formation of choice for the Austrians all the way through to the War of 1866.

Is that the same type of formation as 'masse de division?'

"Last time I stated my source, you mentioned that the French Military did not understand anything about the masse de division ;-)

Ergo same source as the last time I presented it… ;-)"

You are worse than the enigma machine, remember I am old, you have to refresh my mind and I will look into it, to evaluate if the French did understand the Divisionsmasse.